Schools for Gifted Children

[bocamom]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Funny, but I do know very well what gifted means and the majority of people who think their children are gifted are just smart kids. IQ has very little to do with giftedness but yes, the schools do use that as a benchmark. My kids are well above the gifted IQ of 160, thank you, however being gifted is more of the way they process how they learn vs being overly smart. I don't really need to do any research as I do fully understand what I am talking about and as for rudeness, I was not rude, just pointing out that most kids who are classified as 'gifted' in schools are NOT gifted but they are very bright and therefore end up in GATE programs for their accelerated learning-which my kids are a part of, BTW, but I don't consider them gifted.



Again, we were not being rude, just honest. I am glad you have bright children but gifted is another thing.

It is rude to tell a mother you've never met that you know more about her children than she does, actually.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by bocamom

It is rude to tell a mother you've never met that you know more about her children than she does, actually.

Here is my take on this. As I posted before, here is the probability and the definitions of "gifted".

From Intellectual giftedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Bright: 115+, or one in six (84th percentile)
• Moderately Gifted: 130+, or 1 in 50 (97.9th percentile)
• Highly gifted: 145+, or 1 in 1000 (99.9th percentile)
• Exceptionally gifted: 160+, or 1 in 30,000 (99.997th percentile)
• Profoundly gifted: 175+, or 1 in 3 million (99.99997th percentile)
• IQ Range Classification
  140 and over Genius or near genius
• 120-140 Very superior intelligence
• 110-120 Superior intelligence
• 90-110 Normal or average intelligence
• 80-90 Dullness
• 70-80 Borderline deficiency
• Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness

__________________________________________________ ______

The OP said that all 4 of her Kid's test above 160 IQ. The probability of that happening is 1 in 30,000 to the 4th power. Mathematically, it's 1/30,000*1/30,000*1/30,000*1/30,000. For you not-so-savvy math folks, the probability of that randomly happening is statistically impossible. Putting it another way, the odd of that happening are 1 in 1,800,000,000,000,000,000. Now we do have the gene-pool thing going on so that changes the math. Let's pull off 6 zero's for the Heck of it.

To make matters even more statistically spectacular, we have several others that posted on this tread with Kid's having an IQ north of 160. Luck us. For the record, that is also statistically impossible. Now I cannot work that math (because I would need to know all of the members who read this text and also I forgot how to do the math). But I do know this: It's also impossible.

So bocamom, I'm turning off my "MN Nice" and telling it the way it is: Statistically, it's impossible to have all 4 or your Kid's testing above 160. So Mom is either misinformed or.. ahhh... exaggerating. Since I am "MN nice", I'll assume that she is simply misinformed.

[kuan]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

To make matters even
So bocamom, I'm turning off my "MN Nice" and telling it the way it is: Statistically, it's impossible to have all 4 or your Kid's testing above 160. So Mom is either misinformed or.. ahhh... exaggerating. Since I am "MN nice", I'll assume that she is simply misinformed.

I disagree. It may be statiscally improbable for four unrelated people living in the same household to all test at above 160, but chances of having a sibling who tests at roughly the same IQ as you are pretty good.

I have two siblings and we all test at about the same IQ. Of course we're all about average and because we know how to take these tests we score above average.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Hi Kuan. I mentioned in my post that of course the gene pool will have a definite influence. If you read her post, she said "they all were well above 160". Hence, that reduces the probability even more. See my math. If it was completely random, it is 1 out of 1.8 x 10 to the 18th power and that is at 160 IQ; well above 160 would be an order of magnitude above these numbers!! That is a lot of zero's Kuan.

Let's face the music: she is exaggerating. Now I don't doubt for a moment that she probably has 4 really smart Kid's that need some special classes etc. But that is a lot different that lining up 4 Kid's in a row "well above an I.Q. of 160." Sorry, I ain't buying it.

This simply comes down to a parent either embellishing or not getting accurate information. That seems a little more probable. If I was in Vegas, I'd go "all-in" that she is positively wrong. Unless she is testing at IQ Test - Whats Your IQ? Take The IQ Test . It's turns out I am a genius as well.

[MN Parent]

The best gifted school in Minnesota is Cyprus School Home located in Burnsville. Fantastic place!

[Epublius Rex]

Originally Posted by kuan

I disagree. It may be statiscally improbable for four unrelated people living in the same household to all test at above 160, but chances of having a sibling who tests at roughly the same IQ as you are pretty good.

I have two siblings and we all test at about the same IQ. Of course we're all about average and because we know how to take these tests we score above average.

Actually, IQ never varies by more than 10% amongst siblings, unless there is a genetic anomaly or a birth defect.

The numbers listed above concerning IQ are nearly accurate--the one that isn't is the border line "retardation" level of 70. This was changed in the 1990's do to America's growing numbers of sub 85 IQ people. Borderline retardation used to be 80-85. 85 is one full standard deviation below the norm.

Just for kicks, the people with the highest average IQ are Ashkenazi Jews--European Jews as opposed to Middle Eastern Jews. THere average IQ is 115--one full standard deviation above the norm. My hypothosis for this (25 years ago)--and now proving true, was hyper evolution due to constraints on Jews in Europe with regards to manual labor and trades. those who were not smart enough to do upscale work (medicine, banking, etc.) were not able to find mates and their genes died out. Conversely, during the meddle ages, the Church was the only place for those who were bright, but poor, to get an education and the only way to do that was by taking a vow of chastity and thus removing their genes from the pool.

But, remember, intelligence always regresses toward the mean of the parents, thus, if you want intelligent grand children, teach your children to marry above them, intellectually.

[kuan]

Originally Posted by Epublius Rex

Actually, IQ never varies by more than 10% amongst siblings, unless there is a genetic anomaly or a birth defect.

Right. My point is hence upheld. Chances that a sibling may be very smart given that one child is very smart are greater than if the child were part of the general population.